Alain Touraine and Manuel Castells and Social Movement Theory- A Critical Appraisal

Alain Touraine, Manuel Castells and Social Movement Theory a Critical AppraisalAuthor(s): John A. HanniganSource: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), pp. 435-454Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106097Accessed: 10/09/2010 09:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to The Sociological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mss

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106097?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

ALAIN TOURAINE, MANUEL CASTELLS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY:

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL

John A. Hannigan University of Toronto

The "action theory" of Alain Touraine and Manuel Castells' theory of urban movements together constitute a social movement paradigm which differs significantly from both the traditional collective behavior explanation and the newer resource mobilization model. In this paper, the Touraine-Castells perspective is contrasted to the existing approaches with relation to social movement causes, characteristics, and outcomes. It is argued that the work of this "French School" represents a partial realization of Traugott's (1978) attempt to reconceptualize social movements as distinct phenomena integrally linked to the analysis of social change outside institutional channels.

The recent appearance of the English translation of three major books on social movements by the European writers Alain Touraine and Manuel Castells provides an excellent opportunity to analyze the significance and potential of their work as it relates to the study of social movements and social change. Touraine's "action theory" and Castells' "theory of urban movements" together suggest a paradigm which is different from both the traditional collective behavior approach to social movements and the newer resource mobilization interpretation. This third theoretical current is derived from the neo-Marxist analysis of changing structures of class and class relations, however, in its stress on emergent group identity and ideological consciousness constitutes a potentially valuable extension of the Turner-Killian (1972) emergent norm approach to social movements and collective behavior.

While Touraine's ideas on the historical shift to a post-industrial society are reasonably well-known in America, his more recent work on action theory and social movements has received relatively little critical scrutiny.' Castells' (1976, 1977, 1978) original propositions about urban social movements have been extensively critiqued by urban sociologists and planners (see Jaret, 1983; McKeown, 1980; Pickvance, 1975, 1977; Saunders, 1981; Zukin, 1980), but his revised and elaborated model as portrayed in

Address all Communications to: Professor John A. Hannigan, Division of Social Sciences, Scarborough Campus, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada MIC IA4.

The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 435-454. Copyright o 1985 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0038-0253

436 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 26/No. 4/1985

The City and the Grassroots (1983) still awaits critical assessment. In both cases, analysis of the work of this "French School"2 has not been undertaken from within the area of social movements, a lacuna which this article seeks to remedy.

The genesis of both theoretical perspectives was the "May Revolution" in Paris (1968). To Touraine the approaching "class struggle without classes" could best be understood through the notion of the social movement as an essential unit of both structure and history (Bauman, 1983:596). Castells' view of social movements was similarly "formed in the post-1968 period when street action seemed to be the main source of change" (Pickvance, 1978:175). Castells' work was originally based on Poulantzas' attempt to develop a "regional theory" of the state; however, Castells now acknowledges Touraine's action model as the main grounding for his theoretical framework, although he points out that his theory of urban movements should not be considered merely an "application" of Touraine's ideas.

In this article, the assumptions and ideas of the French School will be compared (see Table 1) with those of traditional social movement theory and resource mobilization theory under seven headings: context, defining characteristics, genesis/ reasons for social

Table 1 Traditional, Resource Mobilization and French School Models

of Social Movements Compared Traditional Resource Mobilization French School

Context Political consensus and Elite fragmentation and New forms of conflict and

stability political realignment change

Defining Non-institutional Institutional Anti-institutional Characteristics orientation orientation orientation

Irrational Rational-instrumental Rational-moral

Spontaneous and Planned, sometimes Spontaneous but not

amorphous origins: even manufactured amorphous origins: negative feature positive feature

Genesis Social strain Changing availability of Structural contradictions resources

Basis for Col- Solidary incentives Selective incentives Purposive incentives lective Action

Organization Follows life cycle Contingent upon goals, Grassroots: structure as resources, external action conditions

External None Significant Implicit but not central Closed system Open system

Outcomes Depends on leadership Depends on relative Autonomy plus identity permeability of the

polity

Alain Touraine, Manuel Castells and Social Movement Theory: A Critical Appraisal 437

movement formation, basis for collective action, organization, external dependence, and factors determining social movement success or failure. In the final section, I will present a critique of the Touraine-Castells perspective and argue that their work partially realizes Traugott's (1978:49) call for a return of the sociology of social movements to its proper focus, namely, "the analysis of large scale social change outside institutional channels."

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Historical Context

The traditional collective behavior perspective crystalized during the 1950's when consensus views and a fundamental faith in democratic institutions dominated the social sciences in the United States. Rather than a central fact of social life, movements were treated as anomalies, symptoms of system malfunction and strain. Such "breakdown" theories disregarded the role of conflict within collective action and reduced it to pathological reaction and marginality (Melucci, 1984:820).

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, scholars became more aware of power concentra- tion and its effects, in part as a result of observing the fate of the civil rights and anti-war movements in the United States. Increasingly, "political" approaches became dominant in the field, and elite disunity was treated as a central requirement for social movement success. This growing emphasis on elite fragmentation reflects, I think, the realignment of the Democratic Party away from New Deal politics and towards a series of coalitions with special interest groups (blacks, women, farm workers, etc.) who formed the core social movements of the time. Resource mobilization theorists thus rejected the Parsonian paradigm of the 1950's for a viewpoint "more sensitive to the role of power and power struggles in mobilizing people for collective action" (Burton, 1984:48).

The ideas of the French School, as previously noted, are rooted in the events of May 1968, and subsequent changes in French politics and society. In the wake of the May protests, an array of single issue movements emerged to contest many aspects of everyday life from tenants' rights to environmental protection. Touraine, Castells and their associates were both excited by these developments and, at the same time, distrustful of where these movements were headed. On the one hand, they sensed a common vision of an autonomous, decentralized, self-managed society which might potentially provide "the basis for a renovation of radical social theory" (Hirsh, 1981:208). On the other hand, they feared both the narrow instrumentalism of these single movements and the potential for cooptation by established left wing political interests. The adoption of Eurocommunist strategies by the French and Italian Communist parties in the 1970's and the temporary Union of the Left in France in 1978 catalyzed the latter set of reservations and reinforced the emphasis on unified, independent, mass action outside the electoral context.

Defining Characteristics

Generally, social movements have been distinguished from other social forms on the basis that they occur outside the institutional framework already forming everyday life, and that they are in come manner oriented towards a degree of social change.


Traditional collective behavior theory has tended to focus on the first of these criteria, emphasizing a movement's spontaneity and lack of structure, especially in the early stages of its career. Blumer (1969:8) writes that, in its beginning, a social movement is typically "amorphous, poorly organized and without form" and it is characterized by collective behavior "on the primitive level" as well as by mechanisms of interaction which are "elementary" and "spontaneous."

Resource mobilization theorists, by contrast, are more inclined to treat social movements as extensions of institutionalized actions and to focus on a movement's attempts to reform the predominant social structure and/or gain entry to the polity. Such institutional change movements are characterized by "rational actions oriented toward clearly defined fixed goals with centralized organizational control over resources and clearly demarcated outcomes that can be evaluated in terms of tangible gains" (Jenkins, 1983:529).

The French School identifies with the traditional concept of social movements but in a radically different way. Castells (1983:295) attacks resource mobilization theorists (specifically Oberschall and Ash) for denying that the social movement" has a reality of its own" and for "immediately incorporating it into the political process aimed fundamentally at the state." Social movements, he argues, are key sources of social innovation precisely because "they are not necessarily limited to, or bound by the rules of the game and the institutionalization of dominant values and norms" (p. 294). Thus, social movements can be analytically distinguished from established forms. By implica- tion, one cannot locate social action of the type associated with social movements within established structures, as have Zald and Berger (1978) for corporate coups, bureaucratic insurgency and mass movements in organizations.

Clearly, then, Touraine and Castells believe that social movements are distinguishable primarily on the basis of their anti-institutional orientation. Does this mean that they are by definition revolutionary rather than reformist? Touraine says "not necessarily." In fact, revolutionary and reformist tendencies can coexist in the same movement. In his analysis of the Solidarity movement in Poland, Touraine (1983b:3) grapples with this question and concludes that Solidarity in fact contained two movements: (1) a popular social movement which concerned itself with institutional reforms such as trying to install competent and hard-working managers in industry and wanting to see censorship abolished; and (2) a "social liberation movement" which was fighting against the power and privileges of a ruling class. Over time, the movement underwent a double evolution wherein the leadership increasingly fought for political gains while the rank and file came to view Solidarity as an instrument for the liberation of society.

Like the original collective behavior theorists, the French School introduces the notion of spontaneity into its conceptualization of a social movement, but as a positive feature rather than a negative one. Unlike Blumer, the spontaneous is "not equated with the amorphous" (Sennett, 1981:x). Social movements are seen as having their roots in a spontaneous form of opposition and this quality can continue to energize a developing movement. At the same time, it is recognized that spontaneity by itself is not enough to transform a social movement into a political force. Touraine demonstrates that uncoordinated direct action by anti-nuclear militants in France only led to a "dangerous confusion" (1983a:27) and that the "defensive populism" of the coal miners of Silesia was counter-productive in moving the Solidarity movement towards becoming an instrument


for societal liberation (1983b). In La Prophetie Anti-nucleaire (Anti-nuclear Protest), Touraine (1983a:60-61) clearly shows that "the dream of a spontaneous coming together" of local populations opposed to nuclear power plants and ecology militants from the outside was unrealistic and doomed to fail.

Both Touraine and Castells claim to have located elements of a kind of cultural revolt within the social movements which they have analyzed. While this has within it the promise of elevating the movement to a new level of creative challenge, it can also lead to practical problems. In the Madrid Citizens' Movement, for example, the pursuit of new cultural themes had to be muted since "the further its cultural content departed from current values, the more difficult it became for people to involve themselves in this community building" (Castells, 1983:271). As a result, cultural experimentation by women's organizations and youthful participants within the movement was "not welcome." The more affective, uncontrolled forms of collective behavior practiced by youthful elements, notably, singing revolutionary chants, dancing in large groups and engaging in partial nudity, were seen as "incompatible with the Movement trying to portray itself as representative of the normal resident as opposed to the radical and deviant fringe" (p. 271). Thus, spontaneity is valued within the social movement but only in the proper "creative context."

Finally, traditional social movement theory has assumed that movement actors are, at least in the beginning, "under the dominance of restlessness and collective excitement" (Blumer, 1969:11) and, as a result, more or less irrational. By contrast, resource mobilization theory is built on the assumption that social movement actors, both among the leadership and the rank and file, are primarily dominated by rational, instrumental considerations. The Touraine-Castells approach similarly recognizes the basic rationality of social movement participants but stresses the prominence of moral or purposive incentives. Sennett (1981:ix) stresses that Touraine "takes seriously" the importance for movement actors of such experiences as commitment and the desire for justice.

In sum, the French School views a social movement as unique, anti-institutional, spontaneous but not amorphous, and rational-moral.

Genesis/Reasons for Social Movement Formation

Jenkins (1983:530) has identified the question of why movements form as the "sine qua non of the study of social movements." In contrast to traditional explanations which accorded primacy to grievances arising out of the structural strains of rapid social change, the resource mobilization perspective downplays the role of grievances. Instead, certain movements arise at a particular point in time due to the "changing availability of resources, organization and opportunities for collective action" (p. 530). This changing availability may be traced to historical changes (as in the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1950's), to the ability of social movement entrepreneurs to redefine longstanding grievances in new terms, or to "accidents" (such as that at Three Mile Island) which suddenly inject a new level of resources into groups already organized and moderately resourceful. Note, however, that while resource mobilization theorists acknowledge the significance of political change in facilitating social movement growth, unlike the French School, they do not connect the rise of specific social movements to longer term societal transformations.


Touraine and Castells adopt a view of social movement genesis which is Althusserian in form, but some of its basic assumptions have much in common with traditional collective behavior explanations. According to this view, the traditional Marxist model of an economic base determining a political and ideological superstructure is no longer adequate to explain social change in post-industrial society. Instead, the system can be

conceptualized as a complex of three levels-economic, political and ideological-in which contradictions develop both within and between each level. Castells locates these new social contradictions within the sphere of collective consumption (housing, educa- tion, health) and suggests that they are most clearly manifested at the urban level. Urban

problems are, in his view, increasingly at the heart of political debate in industrial

capitalist societies and this is because of the contradiction between the increasing socialization of goods and the fact that they are managed in the interests of capital (Elliott, 1980:155). Similarly, Touraine (1981:6-7) argues that "what is crucial is no

longer the struggle between capital and labour in the factory but that between the different kinds of apparatus and uses"; in other words, between a highly centralized, technology-dominated state and a populace fighting to exercise a degree of self-

management in the various spheres of the programmed society. As one reads Touraine and Castells, it becomes increasingly clear that beneath the

language of neo-Marxist social theory, there are strong currents of the traditional mass

society perspective. Touraine (1981:15) talks of the "crisis of industrial culture" in which the old anchoring institutions, the family and the Church, have "burst apart," and where "the channels of society no longer correspond to the cultural content they are meant to bear." In the face of this developing social vacuum, there is a backlash of messianic movements which attempt to "salvage a collective existence threatened with disintegra- tion" (p. 16). This is followed by the establishment of community utopias which, he

argues, is a necessary step towards paving the way for more lasting social and political change. Community utopias rarely endure, however, they prepare the ground for the formation of populist movements founded on the desire of social groups experiencing crisis to strengthen their own collective identity and regain control over their own

development. Finally, new social movements arise in which the power sources against whom one must fight are located and defined and political action is undertaken.

The same themes are evident in Castells' analysis of urban movements. He talks of a modern urban society with an overpowered labour movement, an omni-present, one-

way communication system indifferent to cultural identities, an all-powerful centralized

state, a structural economic crisis, and cultural uncertainty (Castells, 1983:330). Against this backdrop develop urban movements which seek to transform urban meaning and to redefine urban functions and forms. Unlike Touraine, however, Castells despairs of the

possibility of these urban movements constituting "a new central social movement able to transform our history" and, ultimately, labels them "reactive utopias" (1983:328).

What distinguishes the French School from traditional perspectives which similarly link institutional breakdown, the rise of a monolithic, one way media and the emergence of social movements is the role of the individual in consciously building his or her future. Traditional collective behavior theories treated the individual as an irrational puppet manipulated by crowd conditions and demagogues and carried along by the forces of history. The French School, by contrast, "rejects the notion that society moves towards ends of which the members of society are unaware" (Sennett, 1981:ix). Rather, true social


movements are consciously constructed by rank and file members and are the expression of the collective will. Furthermore, where traditional collective behavior theory treats the social movement as symptomatic of the breakdown of the social and moral orders, the French School views them not as a rejection of order by marginal men but as a vanguard of a fight to reconstruct the social order itself.3 Thus, Touraine (1983b:2) argues that the Solidarity Movement in Poland is both an upsurge of collective will and an "instrument for the reconstruction of a whole society, for the renewal of social institutions and even of those economic and social forces which may eventually enter into conflict with Solidarity itself." In short, social movements represent solutions, not symptoms, to the crisis of contemporary society.

Basis for Collective Action

Characteristic of most of the existing literature on social movements has been the belief that rank and file members are somehow manipulated by social movement organization leaders into participating in collective action. In the traditional collective behavior approaches, the basis of this manipulation was the charismatic personality of the leader(s). In more contemporary versions, notably Smelser's (1963) value-added theory, movement leaders reinterpret members' fears and resentment in terms of a generalized belief which then becomes the basis for mobilization.

Resource mobilization theory credits movement members with a much greater degree of rationality but the "mobilization by manipulation" theme is still paramount. The major debate here is over the usefulness of Mancur Olson's (1968) theory of collective action. Originally, resource mobilization theorists assumed that both movement entrepreneurs and members were motivated by selective incentives and that free-riding could be minimized by the provision of non-collective material benefits. More recently, it has been recognized that the major task in mobilization is to "generate solidarity and moral commitments to the broad collectivities in whose name movements act" (Jenkins,1983: 538). Selective incentives must, therefore, be buttressed by the collective incentives related to group solidarity and commitment to a moral purpose. Implicit in this is the assumption that goals, ideology and strategy are determined by the leadership while the membership is treated as a resource. This reaches its zenith in the professional social movement which communicates with its followers primarily through the mass media.

The French School accords a much greater role in social movements to both purposive incentives and to the rank and file. Castells (1983:293) argues that Olson's problem is in the "theoretical Antipodes" as far as the study of urban movements and social change is concerned. In history, there are three kinds of actors-the dominant elite, the creators of a new social order and the rentiers of any social organization. Olson's free-rider hypothesis, in pure or modified form, is concerned with the behavior of the rentiers while, Castells claims, the study of social movements centers around how and why the creators challenge the dominants.

Touraine's concept of a social movement is framed in terms of a search by rank and file members for the conditions and meaning of their actions. This self-analysis succeeds (1) if the actors are able to identify the "stakes" over which the conflict is being fought (not just rolling back a new technology such as nuclear power, but reshaping the wider structure of power) and the "opponent" (a social class or institution, not just society or


the state) (Rayner, 1984:166); (2) if the self-analysis is able to be transformed into a program for action. the basis for collective action, then, according to Touraine and Castells, is a kind of do-it-yourself movement building in which, rather than being mobilized through leader-generated selective or solidary incentives, participants jointly struggle to create a new identity and a new vision of the future. Solidarity and moral commitment are thus the products of a group effort rather than something negotiated by the leadership. In a sense, this is closest to the emergent norm perspective proposed by Turner and Killian, although the conditions under which new perceptions and definitions emerge are considerably less naturalistic (especially with the "sociological intervention") and the group pressure to conform is more openly articulated. Whereas Turner and Killian (1972:259-261) view the emergence of a "sense of injustice" as the key process in the development of a social movement, the French School stresses the transformation of this sense of injustice into a wider ideological critique and into a program for action.

Organization

According to traditional collective behavior theory, the primary organizational division within social movements is between the leadership and the rank and file. Only in the final "institutional" stage does the movement crystallize into a fixed organization with definite personnel and structure (Blumer, 1969:12).

In keeping with its origins in the field of formal organizations, resource mobilization theory has consistently addressed the question of what form of organizational structure is most effective under what conditions. In the study of complex organizations, following Burns and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), a dichotomy is drawn between a mechanical form which is almost Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy and an organic form which is the logical opposite. However, there is "no best way to organize for the purpose of achieving the highly varied goals of organizations within a highly varied environment" (Hall, 1982:90). Resource mobilization theorists have carried this "contingency" approach over into the study of social movement organizations, contrast- ing a centralized bureaucratic model and a decentralized informal model. As with formal organizations, different organizational structures are effective for different tasks (Zald and Ash, 1966), and the appropriateness of a specific organizational pattern varies according to the degree of external dependency, competition for resources and the need for ideological commitment.

The French School, by contrast, de-emphasizes the importance of social movement organization and focuses on the movement as a whole. According to Castells, concrete social movement organizations are only the locus of observation rather than the frame of analysis (Pickvance, 1976:199) and organizations are important only to the extent that they allow the "linking of contradictions." Touraine insists that a movement is greater than the sum of its associations and that the former should not be confused with the latter (1981:150-152). Organizations, in fact, become substituted for movements and this weakens the cause. Typically, organized groups are prone to take over and graft themselves onto movements, eventually contaminating them. For example, the French anti-nuclear Malville Committees were invaded by various left wing groups in 1977 and these "organized tendencies" took over. As a result, the ecology movement, which "had a base but no organization" (Touraine, 1983a:82), saw itself invaded and dispossessed of its struggle.


This negative view toward organizations is reflected in Touraine's choice of participants in his "sociological interventions."4 The intervention groups, which are central to the research, are composed of rank and file members rather than leaders and organizers. Actors are invited to participate in the intervention (i.e., reflect about a movement outside the organizations which lay claim to representing it) because they are aware of a disharmony between the movement and its forms of action and organization (Touraine, 1981:153).

This suspicion of specific organizations and of the leadership cadre mirrors, in part, Piven and Cloward's (1977) concern that formalized organizations "divert energies from mass defiance and provide political elites with a forum for propagating symbolic reassurances and thereby demobilizing mass defiance" (Jenkins, 1983:544). However, it is equally a fear of contamination and cooptation by left wing (i.e., Communist) trade unions and political organizations who tread the same ideological territory. Castells witnessed this in the Paris Grand Ensemble (high-rise housing suburb) of Sarcelles where a broad based popular movement was reduced to a skeletal form as a result of a political takeover in 1968, and Touraine saw it in the invasion of the Malville Committees by militants from the extreme left in 1977. At the same time, both Castells and Touraine recognize that for a "vast current of opinion" to be translated into an effective political force requires a program and organization and a set of precisely defined objectives. The paradox of social movement building is how to achieve these without surrendering the autonomy of the challenging group.

External Dependence Traditional collective behavior perspectives tended to treat the social movement as a

closed system, stressing the role of movement leadership, commitment and control. By contrast, the resource mobilization theorists have adopted an open system or organization- environment interaction model which puts considerable emphasis on the significance of outside contributions and the cooptation of institutional resources. Especially influential has been the model of protest as a political resource proposed by Lipsky (1968) wherein social movement organizations seek to win over powerful third parties who then put pressure on the protest targets (the authorities) to respond to the grievances of the protestors.

Generally, the French School tends to de-emphasize the dependence of the social movement on externally derived aid. However, in their specific empirical studies, Touraine and Castells do indicate some recognition of the importance of the external environment. Accordingly, Castells (1983:277) insists that to succeed an urban movement must be connected to society through a series of organizational "operators"-the mass media, the professionals and left wing political parties. The media allow the Movement to communicate to different sectors of public opinion and thereby to overcome its local base. Professionals provide both an informed critique of the existing, technocratic rationale for exploitative metropolitan growth and legitimacy for the demands of the urban movement. Left wing political parties, while a threat to a movement autonomy, provide the strength and militancy necessary to mount a substantive challenge to the existing urban structure and thus help to transform neighborhood mobilization into a social movement.


Touraine, while somewhat less explicit in discussing the nature of this external dependence, nevertheless stresses the needs for an alliance between the incipient movement and institutionalized elements (trade unions, political parties). For example, he makes much of the willingness of French ecologists to formulate a joint declaration with CFDT, a social democratic trade union, calling for a moratorium on the fast breeder stage of France's nuclear program. Like Castells, Touraine recognizes the role of dissident scientists within the establishment in providing the knowledge, competence and legitimacy with which to challenge the technocratic system "on the adversary's own ground" (1983a:21). In the case of Solidarity, Touraine recognizes that the evolution of the movement was dependent not only on its internal dynamics but also on the actions of the Polish state; first to accommodate and then to crush Solidarity. The history of Solidarity, he notes, is thus determined by three factors: its own internal dynamics, the evolution of its adversary, and the changing political situation (1983b:86).

Factors Determining Success or Failure

Traditional collective behavior approaches to social movements were not primarily concerned with the question of social movement outcomes. If anything, they argued that movements passed through a "life cycle" culminating in either collapse, bureaucratiza- tion, or institutional accommodation (Jenkins, 1983:543).

In "Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay, and Change"-a major take-off point for the resource mobilization perspective-Zald and Ash (1966) argue that this evolutionary approach to social movement outcomes is incomplete and they proceed to specify a number of conditions under which alternative transformation processes take place. In recent years, social movement success has been traced to wider changes in the American political system which have opened up the possibility of polity access to groups formerly excluded and unable to coopt institutional resources. The alliance of farm workers, feminists, civil rights groups and environmentalists with liberal democratic elements within the American political system has been treated as the key source of a favorable outcome. Alternatively, movements of the poor may succeed through mass defiance and disruption (Piven and Cloward, 1977) but this is most likely only under conditions of "regime crisis."

Initially, Castells said little about the factors determining social movement success or failure. In general, success appeared to depend on the importance of the stake (issue) involved (Olives, 1976) and on the degree to which a social base becomes organized into a social force (Pickvance, 1977). More recently, however, Castells (1983:322-323) has argued that the future of an urban movement depends on its ability to successfully articulate three basic goals: improved collective consumption, the creation of an autonomous community culture, and political self-management. A full urban social movement produces change at all three levels, the urban, cultural and political. When a movement produces a high level of urban and cultural change but does not fundamentally alter the political system, Castells sees the result as an urban utopia. When a movement achieves only the urban effects, this is said to constitute urban corporatism. When neighborhood movements are purely a political arena for partisan organizations and thereby fail to produce urban or cultural effects, Castells claims the existence of urban shadows. Finally, when movements obtain their immediate urban demands


without modifying the urban system, foster the strength of left wing parties without changing the institutions, and improve neighborhood social networks without redefining the urban culture, then you have urban reform (Castells, 1983:283).

The same themes of autonomy and identity characterize Touraine's formula for a social movement fully realizing its potential. More specifically, social movements have three dimensions: (a) Identity (I), the definition which the social movement actor gives himself; (b) Opposition (0), the definition of his adversary; and (c) Totality (T), the stakes over which the movement and its adversary are in conflict. The more closely these three dimensions are integrated, the more the "project level" of the movement is raised. When the movement acts effectively, according to the I-O-T formula, its capacity for historical action is extremely strong; if, on the other hand, the three components are separated, this capacity is weakened (Touraine, 1981:84). The ecological movement in France failed because it was unable to elevate its definition of the stakes to the societal level and because of the opposition to the dominant class. By contrast, Solidarity, despite its eventual repression by the Polish state, succeeded to a greater extent because it successfully formulated an "ethic" (Touraine, 1983:186) which transcended its specific methods of action or organizational manifestations.

The feminist movement provides several illustrations of the negative consequences of a lack of I-O-T integration. Radical feminists, on the one hand, have become "detached from any social basis," focusing instead on the "affirmation of identity" (Touraine, 1981:221). On the other hand, more moderate elements in the feminist movement who are fighting for specific goals (such as equal pay for equal work) are also limited because they are seeking institutional concessions rather than defining their adversary and stakes more completely. Touraine (1981:87) explains that "no social movement can be solidly formed if its claims are not built upon a wide base to which it accords great autonomy while at the same time endeavouring to rise to a higher level of opposition."

Social movement outcomes, then, can be judged not just by reference to the state and the possibility of sharing power within a given social structure (Castells, 1983:294) as orthodox resource mobilization theory posits, but according to the ability of movement actors to create new definitions and to collectively act upon them.

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL

Does the work of the French School merely represent a Gallic version of that reflected in recent American work on social movements and thus have "little to entice contemporary students of social movements," as Gamson (1983:814) has stated in his review of Touraine's The Voice and the Eye? Or, is it in fact a major new perspective on social movements and social change which constitutes "arguably the most radical and uncompromising challenge to the still so recent 'deterministic' tradition of sociology," as Bauman (1983:596) has claimed in the British journal, Sociology?

In this final section, I will argue that the work of Touraine and Castells does advance a novel perspective on social movements which builds on the Turner-Killian concept of emergence and connects it to the overall process of historical conflict and change in a manner not previously contemplated by social movement theory. First, however, it is necessary to look at key criticisms which have been and can be levelled at their work.


Theoretical and Methodological Weaknesses

A critique of the French School should center on four aspects of the Castells-Touraine approach to social movements: theoretical lacunae, lack of conceptual precision, methodology and structural determinism.

Theoretical Lacunae

The most serious gap in Touraine's action theory and Castells' theory of urban movements is the failure to recognize the role of social movement organizations and of organizational structure in determining the fate of the social movement. As McKeown (1980:277) has pointed out in his critical examination of the central concepts in Castells' urban sociology, it is naive to assume that "organizations are a readily available and uniform means for the expressions of social movements"; in fact, organizations vary greatly according to their aims, membership, geographical location, and connection with other organizations. A social base does not, as the French School assumes, become transformed into a social force "at the wave of the magic wand of organization" (Pickvance, 1977:179); rather, this is a product of the deliberate process of mobilization. While it is true that specific social movement organizations can sometimes act as an albatross around the movement, as a whole, these can also act as vehicles for member recruitment and socialization, for the coordination of activities, for the communication of goals and ideology, and for the negotiation of external legitimacy. In short, as Pickvance (1975:218) has noted, the very "survival and success of social movements depends on the resources they are able to obtain" through the medium of constituent social movement organizations.

Furthermore, the specific structure of a movement does relate to its success or failure. Gamson's (1975, 1980) analysis of challenging groups in the United States since 1800 indicated that such groups were, in fact, more likely to succeed in their challenge where they possessed a centralized, bureaucratic form of organization.5 And, Barkan (1979: 29-30) has demonstrated that in opting for a grass-roots structure which stresses democratic decision-making and maximum participation for all, the anti-nuclear movement in the United States traded off "the ability to act quickly and effectively in conflict situations."

In short, if the social movement is to collectively act upon its alternate vision, organization must be treated as more than merely a way of linking together social contradictions. It is, therefore, difficult to accept Touraine's pronouncement (1981:189) that "the strongest and most fecund movement is not the most unified and organized, but, on the contrary, the most divided," especially given that Touraine has failed to address the ongoing debate between Gamson and his critics (Goldstone, 1980; Piven and Cloward, 1978).

Not only does the Touraine-Castells approach minimize the process of member mobilization, but it also tells us little about what happens once a collective ethic has been successfully proclaimed. If success depends not just on the ability to formulate new definitions but on the ability of the movement to collectively act upon them, then we need to know far more about the conditions which facilitate or hinder such action. As Touraine's Polish study reveals, the evolution of one's opponent and that of the general political environment must be considered as well as the internal processes if one is to deal


adequately with social movement outcomes. Turner's (1969) explorations of the public perceptions of protest is a recognition of the importance of this external element in social movement development, even where the primary emphasis is, like the French School, on emergent definitions of reality.

Lack of Conceptual Precision

The French School has been criticized for its lack of conceptual precision. The central concept of "historicity," for example, is opaquely defined (Nagel, 1983:924; Smith, 1982: 981) in Touraine's analysis of social movements, although his empirical study of Solidarity comes closest to imparting what is meant by this (see Touraine, 1983b:59-63). Similarly, McKeown (1980:277) charges that the precise empirical meaning of concepts such as integration, regulation, confrontation, mobilization, mobilizing potential, social change, and contradiction is "far from evident" in Castells' writing and this strips his hypothesis of a "clearly identifiable empirical meaning."

Methodology The methodology of the French School raises many unanswered questions. Touraine's

method of sociological intervention is especially open to critical doubt. If the intervention group is seen as a kind of microcosm of the movement as a whole, then far more detail is needed as to the background of the participants, how they were recruited, their internal structure, etc. (Gamson, 1983:813). Touraine does this partially in Anti-Nuclear Protest but mainly in anecdotal fashion. If, as Touraine seems to believe, the intervention group represents change in the making, then more rigorous evidence must be provided to link the experimental group "conversions" to the actions of the movement as a whole and to those of its opponents. As Rayner (1984:167) has noted, Touraine's research design does not include control groups with which intervention is not attempted so it is impossible to know whether the same adjustment of strategy and expectations might not have evolved naturally without the influence of the intervention program. Similarly, while his methodology is more orthodox, Castells can be criticized for assuming that it was the actions of the Citizens' Movement in Madrid which brought about wholesale changes in the government approach to housing without expressly demonstrating how this pressure converted into concrete action by the state.

One can criticize both Touraine's method of sociological intervention and Castells' normative analysis for the central assumption that the intellectual can claim privileged insight into the right way to organize society and into the "correct" modes of action (Eyerman, 1984:80). To say this is not to claim that sociology is value free, nor to disclaim the right or responsibility of the social scientist to engage in social action. Rather, it suggests that social movements should be given the same autonomy from non-Comteian intervention as Touraine and his colleagues urge with relation to political parties.

Structural Determinism

Both Touraine and Castells have been criticized for the extent to which their theoretical schemes rest upon an evolutionary theory of structural and historical


development. Eyerman (1984:88) questions Touraine's assumption that only one unifying oppositional social movement is possible at each level of historical development and that he (Touraine) has been able to both locate the point of historical transition and to predict which movement is capable of replacing the working class in the post- industrial society. Similarly, Castells' claim that collective consumption has replaced production as the key process within advanced monopoly capitalism lacks empirical evidence (McKeown, 1980:264), both in terms of precise causes and consequences.

Both writers, despite their emphasis on the ability of individual social actors to make their own history through collective will formation, have not been able to fully escape the bonds of structural determinism. In his earlier work, Castells sought to do so by striking a balance between structures and practices through the use of Poulantzas' concept of "relative autonomy." However, as Saunders (1981:201) has pointed out, the concept of relative autonomy proved inadequate to the tasks it was set to perform; Castells' theory, as a result, fell between structural determinism and an action frame of reference. In Touraine's action theory model and in Castells' more recent work, there is a far more explicit ideological analysis of actions but the wider theory of structural transformation and social transition remains largely speculative and inadequately articulated with the analysis of the micro-sociological processes of identity formation and consciousness- raising within social movement groups. As a result, the "tension between structural constraint and social action" (Lemert, 1981:662) is not fully addressed.

Potential for Social Movement Theory

Finally, what value does the work of the French School have for the study of social movements and what benefits accrue from adopting this perspective? By neglecting the role of human initiative and involvement in the process of social change, the other social movement perspectives have reinforced the tendency of American sociology to treat the study of social movements and social change distinctly and separately (Das, 1981:28). Touraine and Castells, by contrast, attempt to provide a "way of grasping the meaning and import of social movements in a broader scheme of societal development" (Bourg, 1981:378). While one may question Touraine's assertion that individual movements are but particular manifestations of one larger, overarching, historically significant movement, nevertheless, by emphasizing the "interests" of the actors involved in a collective conflict, the French School directs the field toward greater consideration of the basic meaning and orientation of collective action.

As Melucci (1984:821) has recognized, the resource mobilization model is valuable in explaining how a movement is set up and maintains its structure but it says little about why the movement initially arises. Action theory represents the mirror image of this, emphasizing why rather than how. Put somewhat differently, resource mobilization focuses on bureaucratism and pragmatism, action theory on enthusiasm and idealism. As Zurcher and Snow (1981:479) have pointed out, both factors supply a movement with its life-blood and, therefore, this dialectic between organization and passion must be understood if the internal dynamics of a social movement are to be explained.

By treating the social movement as an analytically distinctive form, Touraine and Castells provide a new, restricted, but more coherent definition of a social movement in line with that suggested by Traugott (1978). In this narrower view of what constitutes a


social movement, there are two major criteria: an anti-institutional character and the formation of a distinctive group identity. This obviously eliminates some of what is commonly regarded as falling within the field (e.g., anti-pornography crusades). At the same time, by shifting the definitional thrust away from the medium of protest (outside normal institutional channels) to the broader social and cultural opposition implied by the movement's actions, conceptual ambiguity is actually reduced. For instance, the Green Party in France and Germany currently operates both within and outside of an established political context. Under existing definitions, it would thus be difficult to judge whether or not the "Greens" constitute a social movement per se. By contrast, the French School would interpret the rise of the Greens within the wider context of social and political change in contemporary Europe and thereby focus on the extent of the movement's anti-institutional character rather than on its relative ability to penetrate neo-corporatist political structures.

To Traugott's (1978:48) question-how can we effectively recognize the anti- institutional character of the true social movement?-the French School provides an answer. A genuine movement must be able to transcend both a sense of localism and a narrow concern with a single issue. Its members must be able to transform their opposition into a systematic critique of the dominant structure of power. Touraine suggests that the ecology movement has this potential but has failed to grasp the breadth of the stakes involved and the scope of the opposition. By contrast, Solidarity, as it has evolved, has more completely come to terms with the meaning of anti-institutionality.

For Traugott's concept of positive solidarity, Touraine and Castells have substituted the more specific concept of group identity. This identity can be ethnically based or historically originated (Castells, 1983:319), based on class consciousness or commitment to an ethic (Touraine, 1983b). Without a concrete sense of identity, a social movement will not fully develop.

Both identity and an anti-institutional orientation are products of the group process and thus are emergent from the internal dialogue and self-analysis of the incipient movement itself. This is consistent with Turner and Killian's (1972:259-261) proposition that the emergent norm-the central element that permits a variety of forms of action derived from varied motives to take place under common definition and justification- matures and crystallizes with the development of the social movement. As Rayner (1984:167-168) has suggested, it is "the details of the face-to-face interaction" within the movement which is the most valuable aspect of Touraine's empirical work, and it is this which promises to extend our understanding of how collective interests and identities are emergent.

A further contribution of Touraine and Castells to social movement theory is the movement typology implied in their work. Since both an anti-institutional consciousness and a sense of group identity are emergent products of interaction within the true social movement, one can cross relate these in terms of their relative absence or presence (see Table 2).

A social liberation movement (the Warsaw arm of Solidarity best epitomizes this type) has achieved a high awareness of the meaning of its challenge and has seen its actions in relation to the need to reconstruct societal structures and values as a whole. Further- more, it has created a distinct, self-conscious cultural identity which contributes to the autonomy of the group and provides a basis for movement solidarity. It is this latter


Table 2 Typology of Social Movements

Emergent Group Identity

High Low

Social Revolutionary High liberation movement

Emergent movement movement Anti-Institutional Awareness Cultural Professional

Low reform movement movement

dimension, in particular, which elevates the social liberation movement beyond just a politically aware value-oriented movement of the type described by Smelser (1963).

By contrast, a revolutionary movement has recognized the need to reconstitute the existing political order but lacks the distinct cultural base upon which a collective resocialization can be mounted. Gamson (1968:49) hints at this when he suggests that a revolutionary movement, unlike a separatist movement, might aim at replacing an existing regime with a new order but wish to preserve the existing political community in its present form.

A cultural movement has developed a distinct sense of self-identity but has not adequately connected its goals and actions to a wider critique of the social system. The gay movement, for example, has merged the defense of cultural identity with a powerful drive into the political system (at least in some cities, notably San Francisco), but has been unwilling as a movement to commit itself to the wider struggle to reconstitute American society; as a result, it has isolated itself as a cultural community and has become "just another interest group playing coalition politics" (Castells, 1983:323).

Finally, the professional reform movement, the focus of much of the existing research utilizing the resource mobilization perspective, lacks both anti-institutional awareness and a sense of distinct identity. Since the goal of the professional reform movement is to alter some element of the existing system and/or gain entry to the polity, a further reaching institutional critique is automatically excluded. For example, the Greenpeace Foundation, a leading ecological social movement organization, seeks a wide number of reforms from saving whales to stopping the dumping of toxic wastes into the oceans, but purposely avoids a direct political challenge based on the interconnectedness of these issues. Furthermore, the highly centralized structure of the professional social movement organization with its "outside leadership, full time paid staff, small or non-existent membership, resources from conscience constituencies and actions that 'speak for' rather than involve an aggrieved group" (Jenkins, 1983:533) all but rules out the emergence of a concerted, anti-institutional awareness at a grassroots level.

In the future, we need to know much more about the conditions which lead to the development of one form of social movement as against another. In particular, what produces the dual consciousness which characterizes the social liberation movement? To what extent does this reflect historical circumstances, existing communities of interest, or successful mobilization efforts? Under what conditions do movements transform


themselves from cultural or revolutionary movements into social liberation movements? Do those from different social classes, as Jenkins (1983:539) has suggested, respond to different forms of incentives and thus differentially engage in the kind of purposive self-analysis and movement building advocated by the French School? What role does the movement leadership play in "keynoting" emergent ideologies and identities? To what extent do external conditions influence the movement's progress towards an emergent anti-institutional awareness?

Despite evident weaknesses, the work of Touraine and Castells has significantly added to Traugott's (1978:49) vision of the social movement as a distinct phenomenon integrally linked to the analysis of social change outside institutionalized channels. Specifically, their research has returned social movement analysis to a focus on the rank and file member, on purposive incentives and on the social psychological concept of emergence. Although not wholly successful, this is the first major attempt6 since Smelser's value added theory to link micro and macro processes in the analysis of collective action. Yet, until their theory becomes grounded in a greater emphasis on the role of organizational structure and strategy and the importance of external legitimation and support, the French School will ultimately fall short in their attempt to formulate a powerful and complete account of the emergence of a "total" social movement.

NOTES

1. This probably reflects the lack of an English translation until 1983 of Touraine's two major empirical applications: Anti-nuclear Protest, and Solidarity: Poland 1980-81. For critical reviews of the theoretical scheme set out in an earlier work, The Voice and the Eye, see Bourg (1981), Gamson (1983), Nagel (1983), and Smith (1982).

2. Castells has for some time been Professor of City and Regional Planning at Berkeley. However, his theory of urban movements was originally conceived and elaborated at the Centre d'Etudes des Movements Sociaux of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris of which Alain Touraine was the director.

3. In this, a parallel can be drawn with the "subcultural" theory of urbanism (see Fischer, 1976) which turned the traditional Park-Burgess-Wirth theory of urban anomie upside down by arguing that urban subcommunities were sources of social support and identity rather than indicators of social disorganization in the metropolis.

4. It should be noted, however, that Gamson's successful challenges tended to have goals which did not require displacing other groups from power and which were concentrated on a single issue (Tilly et al., 1975). It could thus be argued that such protest groups would not meet the criteria of the French School for qualifying as a social movement.

5. The object of the method of sociological intervention is to raise the consciousness of the movement members who have been brought together in the group such that they grasp the full scope of the struggle in which they have been participating. The researcher serves two functions, that of interpreter or agitator (forcing the group to question basic assumptions and engage in self-analysis) and that of analyst or secretary (reporting and explaining the results of the self-analysis). The sociologist thus acts as a catalyst to the emergence of anti- institutional awareness and group identity but does not himself become an active member of the movement.

6. Jenkins (1983:550) has called for resource mobilization theory to expand its scope to more fully link the study of social movements with both macro (a comparative sociology of states) and micro (a more sophisticated social psychology of collective action) concerns. Doing so, however, will "likely remain a problem in the future" (p. 530).

REFERENCES

Ash-Garner, Roberta 1977 Social Movements in America. Chicago: Rand McNally.


Barkan, Steven E. 1979 "Strategic, tactical and organizational dilemmas of the protest movement against nuclear power."

Social Problems 27:19-37. Bauman, Zygmunt

1983 "Review of 'Anti-nuclear protest and solidarity: Poland 1980-81' by Alain Touraine." Sociology 17: 596-598.

Blumer, Herbert 1969 "Social movements." Pp. 8-29 in Barry McLaughlin (ed.), Studies in Social Movements: A Social

Psychological Perspective. New York: The Free Press. Bourg, Carroll J.

1981 "Review of 'The voice and the eye: an analysis of social movements' by Alain Touraine." Sociological Analysis 42:378-379.

Burns, Tom and G.M. Stalker 1961 The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.

Burton, Michael G. 1984 "Elites and collective protest." The Sociological Quarterly 25:45-66.

Castells, Manuel 1976 "Theoretical propositions for an experimental study of urban social movements." Pp. 147-173 in

C.G. Pickvance (ed.), Urban Sociology: Critical Essays. London: Tavistock. 1977 The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. London: Edward Arnold. 1978 City, Class and Power. London: Macmillan. 1983 The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. London:

Edward Arnold. Das, Mitra

1981 "Social movements, social change and mass communications." International Review of Modern Sociology 11:127-143.

Elliott, Brian 1980 "Manuel Castells and the new urban sociology." British Journal of Sociology 31:151-158.

Eyerman, Ron 1984 "Social movements and social theory." Sociology 18:71-82.

Fischer, Claude S. 1976 The Urban Experience. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gamson, William 1968 Power and Discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. 1975 The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. 1980 "Understanding the careers of challenging groups." American Journal of Sociology 85:1043-1060. 1983 "Review of 'The voice and the eye: an analysis of social movements' by Alain Touraine." American

Journal of Sociology 88:812-814. Goldstone, J.A.

1980 "The weakness of organization." American Journal of Sociology 85:1017-1092. Hall, Richard H.

1982 Organizations: Structure and Process. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hirsh, Arthur

1981 The French New Left: An Intellectual History from Sartre to Gorz. Boston: South End Press. Jaret, Charles

1983 "Recent neo-Marxist urban analysis." Annual Review of Sociology 9:499-525. Jenkins, J. Craig

1983 "Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements." Annual Review of Sociology 9: 527-553.

Lawrence, Paul R. and Jay W. Lorsch 1967 Organization and Environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lemert, Charles 1981 "Literary politics and the champ of French sociology." Theory and Society 10:645-669.

Lipsky, Michael 1968 "Protest as a political resource." American Political Science Review 62:1145-1158.


McKeown, Kieran 1980 "The urban sociology of Manuel Castells: a critical examination of the central concepts." The

Economic and Social Review 11:257-280. Melucci, Alberto

1984 "An end to social movements? Introductory paper to sessions on 'new' movements and change in organizational forms." Social Science Information 23:819-835.

Nagel, J. 1983 "Review of 'The voice and the eye: an analysis of social movements' by Alain Touraine." Social

Forces 61:923-924. Oberschall, Anthony

1973 Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Olives, J.

1976 "The struggle against urban renewal in the Cite d'Alionte (Paris)." Pp. 194-197 in Pickvance (ed.), Urban Sociology: Critical Essays. London: Tavistock.

Olson, Mancur 1968 The Logic of Collective Action. New York: Schocken.

Pickvance, C.G. 1975 "On the study of urban social movements." The Sociological Review 23:29-44. 1976 Urban Sociology: Critical Essays. London: Tavistock. 1977 "From 'social base' to 'social force': some analytical issues in the study of urban protest." Pp.

175-186 in M. Harloe (ed.), Captive Cities: Studies in the Political Economy of Cities and Regions. London: Wiley.

1978 "Review of 'The urban question' by Manuel Castells." The Sociological Review 26:173-176. Piven, Francis Fox and Richard A. Cloward

1977 Poor People's Movements. New York: Pantheon. 1978 "Social movements and societal conditions: a response to Roach and Roach." Social Problems 26:

172-178. Rayner, Steve

1984 "Review of 'Anti-nuclear protest: the opposition to nuclear energy in France' by Alain Touraine." The Sociological Review 32:165-166.

Saunders, Peter 1981 Social Theory and the Urban Question. London: Hutchinson.

Sennett, Richard 1981 "Foreword." Pp. ix-xi in Alain Touraine (ed.), The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social

Movements. Trans. Alan Duff. London: Cambridge University Press. Smelser, Neil

1963 Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: The Free Press. Smith, W. Rand

1982 "Review of 'The voice and the eye: an analysis of social movements' by Alain Touraine." The American Political Science Review 76:980-981.

Tilly, Charles, Louise Tilly and Richard Tilly 1975 The Rebellious Century: 1830-1930. London: J.M. Dent.

Touraine, Alain 1981 The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements. Trans. Alan Duff. London: Cambridge

University Press. 1983a Anti-Nuclear Protest: The Opposition to Nuclear Energy in France. With Zsuzsa Hegedus, Francois

Dubet and Michel Wieviorka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983b Solidarity: Poland 1980-81. With Francois Dubet, Michel Wieviorka and Jan Strzelecki. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Mark

1978 "Reconceiving social movements." Social Problems 26:38-49. Turner, Ralph H.

1969 "The public perception of protest." American Sociological Review 34:815-831. Turner, Ralph H. and Lewis M. Killian

1972 Collective Behavior. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


Zald, Mayer and Roberta Ash 1966 "Social movement organizations: growth, decay and change." Social Forces 44:327-341.

Zald, Mayer and Michael A. Berger 1978 "Social movements in organizations: coup d'etat, insurgency and mass movements." American

Journal of Sociology 83:823-861. Zukin, Sharon

1980 "The cutting edge: a decade of the new urban sociology." Theory and Society 9:575-601. Zurcher, Louis and David A. Snow

1981 "Collective behavior: social movements." Pp. 447-482 in Morris Rosenberg and Ralph H. Turner

(eds.), Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Basic Books.

Documents

Alain Touraine and Manuel Castells and Social Movement Theory- A Critical Appraisal